Post by Cuahchic on Jan 6, 2018 4:23:39 GMT -8

Following on from the great discussion in the jibber-jabber thread, I feel that the players of LoR should have a say on what they want a collaborative building game to look like!

There is an attached poll with four choices, these are:

"LoR is fine as it is, I am happy to wait for the next GC and keep the same structure" - if you vote for this, you feel the current arrangement of a closed king's council driving the global storyline is fine, and you like the lore created (keep the same factions and past storylines).

"Keep the LoR world but change the structure" - if you vote for this, you feel the current factions and past storylines should be preserved, but the way the game is run should be changed.

"I want to start again with new factions and lore, but the same structure as LoR" - if you vote for this, you feel the current arrangement of a closed king's council driving the global storyline is fine, but you want to create new factions and lore.

"I want to start again with new factions and lore, but with a different structure to LoR" - if you vote for this, you want new factions and lore as well as changing the way the game is run.

However you vote, I would appreciate your input below (even if it's just copied and pasted from the jibber-jabber thread). Particularly if you vote for new lore or changes to the game management, please elaborate on what you would like to see.

PS - I have no authority over the LoR game but I think if players make a case below for change it would be hard to ignore, particularly given the lack of engagement from the King's Council.

Post by Sir Caedric Moore on Jan 6, 2018 8:25:47 GMT -8

Pasted from the Jibber Jabber Thread:

I'm a fan of the idea that actions/building affects the Global Storyline, but only marginally i.e. one step at a time: "Faction A attacks Faction be at Location F to achieve Goal 1". Dynamic play like that would be a lot more engaging for a lot of players, myself included, but it would be best to be conservative about it; you don't want an entire faction to lose control of their country for a year real-time due to losing one challenge with no way to undo it or change it until the games creators say differently. Losing control of a town, city, mine, forest, dockyard, etc. either temporarily or permanently based on who holds it (who wins challenges for it) would be much more interesting. I also liked the idea of the Global Colonization builds, but I honestly never had much if any interest in the tropical isles; implementing such a system for our player cities and/or for main cities within our faction, however, sounds perfect.

Each player could have his/her own player-controlled city that they have rights to and can build for, while their factions could have main cities that all faction members have rights to and can build for. Say Loreos wanted to beef up its defenses by building a wall: members could build for Local Challenges to gather material such as quarrying or purchasing stone by building mocs of their characters (or faction soldiers) doing so; enough material gathered and the faction goal they established can be carried out i.e. "X tons of Stone quarried = Y amount of Wall built". Then, Lenfald could decide they don't like that wall and want to tear it down, so they could declare War on whatever section of wall (city, town, single location) they choose, activating a War game; the two factions would build mocs to achieve set goals within the War, shifting the balance of control of said objective with each challenge met. The challenges could each feature Small (8x8), Medium (16x16), Large (24x24), and Unrestricted (32x32 or bigger) for the different subcategories of each challenge and members could build for each category multiple times to help achieve said goal, dependent on points earned from previous challenges i.e. "Player B earned 10 points from Local Challenges, so he can build X amount of entries using his points", or something along those lines.

I've really enjoyed LoR and would like to see the game continue, but it seems change of some nature is necessary to keep it fresh and keep people interested. I like the idea of keeping the established lore as many of us have invested years into our current stories, but altering the geography might help; rearranging the three mainland factions so that each shares a border with the other two would make the game more dynamic and allow for each faction to have similar environments at the borders while maintaining their own unique topography towards the coast. It might even be prudent to move the Outlaws faction to the mainland, as well, and give them their own country; as it is now, Outlaws are ostracized and outcast and have always been made to be the defunct de facto defectors that aren't treated as being a real part of Roawia.

A much faster-paced game that players can engage in at whatever speed they choose would probably be beneficial to us; participating would help each faction, but not participating wouldn't doom one faction while making another King of All. Factions would have to allocate their resources and work together to accomplish massive Global goals, which might in turn leave them open to attack from another faction; trying to conquer a city might cause you to lose a city of your own, but trying to take a town or a mine would be much easier. Control of mines and forests would grant factions access to X amount of resources that they can use to achieve Local Goals. I would probably build more often if there were achievable goals available to work towards at my own pace and my builds weren't always going to be going head-to-head with others; players could engage in single conquests, collaborative conquests, and competitive conquests depending on which they prefer at any given time.

I'm glad to see so much interest from those who have commented and a willingness to move towards the future and keep the game going Ronin

Post by Lego3364 on Jan 6, 2018 12:08:34 GMT -8

Personally I think that methods of purchasing and limited materials can be discouraging for new players depending on the complexity of those rules, and can also be limiting for the creative license of builders. But I do feel that higher stakes should be involved in more Global Challenges, stakes for each player individually and for their faction as a whole. (Eg. GC VII with the whole injury/death roll)

I definitely agree on changing the structure of how the game is run. I feel that with a lot of effort, people, and their feedback I think that a better structure to run the game could be found that's less work for the admin team and more player-based. Therefore making a more efficient and quicker system.

On the topic of pre-established lore, I really don't have a preference. Many people have contributed to the current lore, and if everything is erased/changed it may discourage former members from returning if everything is different, but on the other hand starting fresh with new land and lore would freshen everything up.

Post by josdu on Jan 6, 2018 12:42:35 GMT -8

I think it's time to go to a new thing completely. It's not that LoR has nothing good, but starting afresh and using the good is better, I think, than trying to boost up the old with new.. hope that is comprehensible. I am the more into this idea as I am part of an upcoming RPG that was originally meant to appeal to LoR members. The only unfortunate thing is that it will likely be at least 10 more months before it will be launched, but I do believe it has all the best from LoR and a great deal more. The problem that LoR faces or faced was repetitiveness; same types of stories, same types of regulation, and though it has often tried to change, for example we had a GC where the winner effected the outcome.. it didn't really work. Because now it's too slow, and people haven't even responded on how they wanted the outcome to be, because half of the leaders are gone. In the new game, from the very start, we will try to avoid that, keep it fast paced with plenty of variation, and letting it go the way the people want it to go as much as possible. So for me, it's a complete change that would be best, including even a change of website maybe. I know it's drastic, and I would watch with interest if you guys decide to try to keep LoR going, maybe even start building for it a little, but my main loyalties are basically with the up-and-coming RPG, and I hope when it comes out many of you will be interested.

Post by Ember on Jan 6, 2018 12:48:14 GMT -8

Just out of curiosity but what is this new roleplay group?

Pasted from the Jibber Jabber Thread:

Ok, so I have put together a summary of what people want and the general consensus of things that need to change. If I've missed or misinterpreted anything just message me and I will edit this. If I've put a question mark after any statement it means I'm unsure if I have interpreted this right.

1) Switching the driving force of the GS from the KC to the players, allowing them to influence the storyline and play how they want. More interaction between players and their storyline effects.

4) Better simulation of war. Eg: war objectives, territory only swaps hands if it was part of the initial objective and only that territory. This is seen in games such as Crusader Kings 2. However, measures must be put in place to stop factions losing control in the space of 1 real year, thus making it so players won't get annoyed.

5) A new system to be put in place to have to have balanced teams with active players.

6) player controlled cities and regions, much like feudal Europe.

7) A new point system? war and battle points for participation in war challenges?

8) A resource system similar to the 9 Kingdoms roleplay group? Control of these resource sites would go towards local goals. Eg: having X amount of resources would allow the faction to build a harbour, thus a local challenge would happen to build a harbour at X city?

Ok I think I've covered everything but if I've missed something just say and I will change it straight away

Post by Ayrlego on Jan 6, 2018 15:20:50 GMT -8

The main reason I joined LoR over other castle based RPGs was the factions. I love them as they are and would strongly support keeping them and the map unchanged. If you are going to consider new factions and a new map then it is no longer LoR, but a new RPG (just my opinion). I would keep everything that has occurred previously as official lore. You can still create anew, borders can change slightly, the outlaws can become a nation if that is what they want (or we could make them NPC?), but lets not simply wipe out the years of role play that have gone before.

While I do believe changes are needed as outlined in the jibber-jabber thread, I do believe that the game in its current state has the mechanisms in place for more player based stories. The under-used guild system and even the rival challenges would be great ways to advance stories and can be done in collaboration. Perhaps as a intrem solution we could make a way of making these systems more meaningful?

While I would be willing to assist with reforming the game, I remain sceptical that all this won't just all blow over in a few weeks when everyone looses interest/goes back to work/school etc.

Therefore if we do go ahead, what I would propose is a transition period where people get active again and prove a commitment to make it work. To that end I say we continue with the current format for a short time - the KC will release the next storyline update which will shift focus back to the mainland. As this happens we work in the background to create a more player based system that relies less heavily on a leadership group. We take a role call and re-populate the factions. Maybe some minor border changes. Maybe 4 is too many? Then when ready it's a clean slate but within the old geographic world. We start again. Factions can determine new leaders, new cities or whatever. We could implement a feudal type system like what is being discussed in the other thread....

Meanwhile as all this is going on, we the players could do some sort of mini colab refocusing on our factions? Maybe an Army flash mob like Garheim did a while back? Or everyone just builds a small classic castle theme build (either a LoR themed MOC based on one of TLG official kits eg. Blacksmith, Guarded Inn etc) or just something typically castley...

Post by Merc on Jan 6, 2018 18:36:24 GMT -8

As a moderately new player, I am in favor of keeping some of the existing lore. The different faction and architecture styles is appealing because I like north style castle building. I am also a lore person and this page has a great section that deals with all the past lore all grouped into one neat little thread. However As I have now been introduced and trying to build for BoBs, I like how there is multiple projects going on, The ability to impact one settlement, doing a collaborative group story or being able to do an individual story. More player impact on global events is encouraged but i think some sort of moderator is needed in order to settle disputes.

I would also be willing to help so as to not have to put some much burden on a few people.

(Idea: Fast forward LoR by 100 years in order to start with a fresh slate and new factions both player and NPC while keeping the lore that many people have worked hard to create as historical facts)

Post by Ember on Jan 6, 2018 19:09:10 GMT -8

I really like this idea of fast forwarding a few years. however, I feel 100 is a bit much. I'm thinking more 10 or so years so players that want to keep their characters can but in there "older" state while still starting with a fresh slate for factions that many of the players want.

Post by Merc on Jan 6, 2018 19:19:31 GMT -8

I really like this idea of fast forwarding a few years. however, I feel 100 is a bit much. I'm thinking more 10 or so years so players that want to keep their characters can but in there "older" state while still starting with a fresh slate for factions that many of the players want.

I understand with players wanting to keep characters they have created. My suggestion was more along the lines of being able to create a few NPC factions. Currently the current lore has four factions in a constant struggle. Its like a four way tug-o-war. Whenever one faction gets "too' powerful the other factions gang up on it. With NPC factions, there is an ability to focus on that. It may not have to be 100 years but maybe 30-50. In feudal Europe boundaries were always in flux with new kingdoms appearing and disappearing quickly (relative to to our standards of current country borders). Also if we really think about it LoR characters don't age because time is relevant to each player (or doesn't exist )

Post by Ember on Jan 6, 2018 20:24:31 GMT -8

I'm probably getting a bit ahead of myself but I've just constructed a rough plan on how I would do the transition to LoR 3.0

As I understand it GC XVI is almost ready and to get the wheels rolling this and in my opinion is the best place to start.

The drafting up of LoR 3.0 rules. This will take some time.

GC XVII. After its completion, this would see the creation of a power vacuum in Roawia and thus, allowing territory to be tweaked and the formation of NPC factions. (My own idea. I'm sure the KC has there own plans on how they want to see the lore play out, so don't take what I've said as fact)

Finalisation of LoR 3.0 rules and making sure the LoR 2.0 lore is finalised enough to allow a believable transition to the new storyline set in LoR 3.0

LoR 3.0 release

New war and campaign map system alpha test

War and campaign map system beta test

If it works the war and campaign map system is introduced

This is just a really rough plan of what I would do. If you don't like it that's absolutely fine I'm just putting this done on paper so we have somewhere possibly to start so we don't end up continuously talking and not getting anything actually done

Post by Kingdomviewbricks on Jan 6, 2018 21:36:39 GMT -8

Sorry for not chiming in earlier, I too have been following the conversation but I have not had time to respond. (I keep starting to write replies which become obsolete before I finish them. Why did everybody start talking so fast all the sudden?)

Anyway, this is a good discussion, and a conversation that needs to be had.

I think considering an overhaul to the game system is getting ahead of ourselves a bit. As much as we all might like the idea of a land grab or economy mechanic, it seems clear that none of us have the time to construct, run, or participate in a more complex game than we already have. Moreover, I for one am not going to be motivated put in the work of designing a new system if there is no assurance that anyone will actually build for it. As we've seen with LoR 2.0 and the colonization challenge, rule upgrades do not magically generate participation, even if they are highly positive changes.

To me, the heart of LoR has always been the player's stories for their personal characters, in GCs, yes, but also ongoing in free builds and guild builds. I don't think the global storyline ought to be the focus, but a backdrop which adds changing and universal details to the personal stories. Yes, allowing players to influence the global storyline is fun, but that is necessarily limited in extent under any system. Even when the players have no influence on the global storyline, they have near complete freedom to tell any story they want. That's how LoR can be player-driven without a byzantine global game control mechanic.

With that said, I think part of our problem is that we're currently placing a little too much emphasis on the GCs and global storyline, to the point that if there is no GC, no one builds anything. With nothing apparently going on in the forum, the interest of both players and the KC is diminished, which slows things down further and diminishes entries when the GC does arrive. Paradoxically, the only thing that reliably generates participation, is participation.

Therefore, as Ayrlego has said, I think the way forward is simply for those of us who are interested, (and there seem to be quite a few in these threads), to simply build for LoR and tell their own stories. If that happens, then the KC will either get with the program and keep producing content, or they can be replaced with members who have shown commitment (and more free time). Once we have some momentum again, and some assurance that the whole thing isn't an exercise in futility, then we can start implementing improvements such as you guys are discussing here.

The larger issue, and the one that's harder to solve, is that most of us seem to have had little time lately for LEGO at all, and thus those who do have moved on to other things. Again, that scarcity of time and members is a reason to be wary of a complex game. The real question is, are we going to have enough active builders this year to sustain LoR? If we are, then all those that are interested are going to have to actually build, and we need to move to a decentralized system that doesn't depend on a large amount of work from the KC.

Anyway, glad to see the enthusiasm in here. I would be in favor of many of the improvements suggested, I just think we need some activity to build on first.

P.S. I am opposed to any replacement of current lore or timeline, as to me, a large part of the appeal of LoR is all the interconnected history that has come before.

P.P.S. Can anyone explain how Die Neun Reiche actually works? I find it intriguing, but don't really know much about it beyond the builds I see.

Post by Cuahchic on Jan 7, 2018 6:43:28 GMT -8

Like josdu, I voted for the nuclear option: “I want to start again with new factions and lore, but with a different structure to LoR”. I’ve set out some reasons for this in the jibber-jabber thread. My suggestions below are by no means final, a lot needs further fleshed out, but is inspired by Die Neun Reiche and computer games like the Total War series and Crusader Kings 2.

++++++++++

I’ve spoken elsewhere about the need for player maturity when creating a game of this nature, and I would limit participation to a small (10 – 14 max) group of players. These players would be divided amongst a larger number of factions (to allow more faction-faction interaction) so that there were two players per faction – this allows each faction to respond to events when one player is temporarily unavailable. These factions would all be part of one larger realm headed by a weak Emperor (similar to the Holy Roman Empire) surrounded by a number of loosely defined NPC factions which can be the subject of war, diplomacy, etc.

The goal of the game would be to expand your faction within the realm (via diplomacy, economy or war) through defined actions and global challenges. The game would be open ended and have no “win” conditions – the goal is to contribute to the game world and have fun through MOCs. Each faction would have a number of key metrics, e.g. reputation, gold, manpower, etc, that can be used to score them at any time.

During the actions phase there would be a number of rounds in which factions could choose from a list of predefined actions (see below) which would have in game effects. In my view there are three facets to a successful RPG game, these are:

• A diplomacy system

• An economic system

• A warfare system

These should be meaningful, by which I mean the outcomes are binding and have an effect on the future decisions that can be made.

Examples of warfare actions could include: invading a faction, raiding a faction, raising armies, building castles, putting a city/castle under siege, etc.

Each action would have a cost in gold, resources or manpower but would have a benefit. Each action would require a MOC to be built by one of the two faction members. The outcome would be decided by an element of random number generation based on the situation of the faction undertaking the action, and potentially by rating the quality of the MOC through player voting.

After a set number of rounds (e.g. 5) there would be a global challenge but unlike LoR, the Emperor role would be elected from one faction by the players. Each faction wishing to become Emperor would propose a task that the realm (i.e. all factions) should undertake and this would form the basis of the global challenge. This could be invade an NPC faction, purging internal heretics, embark on a construction boom, etc.

Becoming Emperor would confer some benefits but also have disadvantages. On the plus side your challenge would become the global challenge and you would temporarily become the arbitrator of any faction disputes (i.e. enforcing rules) as well as judging the results of the global challenges. It should also confer a small bonus to your economy for the duration of power. On the minus side you cannot win the global challenge (can enter though) so are ineligible for the benefits conferred on the winner.

The result of actions and global challenges would be that factions can gain or lose gold, manpower, resources and territory. Each faction would initially have a territory made up of a fixed number of provinces (e.g. 10) each of which has a fertility rating (affects manpower), defence rating (how easy to conquer, based on landscape and constructed defences) and may contain a resource (each faction could choose two to distribute amongst their provinces). Each faction could choose a number of core provinces (e.g. 3) which can never be lost through war, whereas the others can be invaded and lost through the warfare system. This allows for territorial gain/loss without eliminating specific factions.

++++++++++

Comments on this proposal:

• As mentioned elsewhere, basic admin tasks should be automated away. This could be achieved by agreeing a posting format and having a bot scrape the forum to pick up posted MOCs and undertake the RNG elements of the actions.

• A method to add/remove players due to inactivity is required, probably via a voting system.

• NPC factions would be fleshed out by the players through challenges and other game events.

• Initial construction of balanced factions would be a challenge.

• During the faction creation phase sensible compromises might need to be made if factions are too similar or want to share specific sigils, etc. Hopefully the players can all be adult about this (should help if it’s a closed group).

• An Emperor would need to have term limits to prevent the same factions being elected consecutively.

• The Emperor would not be able to affect the factions in any way as he is not an absolute monarch, instead is more like the head of a confederation where vassals can be more powerful than he is.

• The Emperor election is independent of faction power, but instead the imagination of the player proposing the challenge. This should encourage participation, as you would effectively be voting for the challenges you wanted to do and it wouldn’t matter how powerful your faction is in the game.

• Running for Emperor would not be mandatory.

• Challenges proposed by candidate Emperors must not unfairly affect one faction – i.e. “Invade NPC nation X” would be allowed but “Invade player faction Y” would not.

• Conquering the province of another faction should be possible but fairly difficult through the RNG to prevent one faction gaining too much land too quickly.

• The core territories should be prevented from containing resources to allow those to be won/lost through conquest.

• Resources should be duplicated to discourage monopolies, e.g. if there are 6 factions and therefore 12 resource slots (assuming two per faction), there should only be 4 resources so they each appear 3 times throughout the provinces. This would also simplify game management.

• Although there is a lot to define here, I think the result would be a player led game with lots to do, thus encouraging participation.

Post by Merc on Jan 7, 2018 18:49:29 GMT -8

Like josdu, I voted for the nuclear option: “I want to start again with new factions and lore, but with a different structure to LoR”. I’ve set out some reasons for this in the jibber-jabber thread. My suggestions below are by no means final, a lot needs further fleshed out, but is inspired by Die Neun Reiche and computer games like the Total War series and Crusader Kings 2.

So I like some of the ideas like the economy. I have played the total war series and I understand where your idea is going. However I think that the nuclear option would simply be creating a new game and from many of the posts I have read and my own feelings, LoR needs a simple uplift. I like the idea of warfare given that the medieval time period was a period of constant upheaval but that is a tricky concept to balance and make everyone feel some type of satisfaction (making everyone happy is impossible ). In addition limiting the game to 10-14 dedicated people is not LoR esq. Please do not take this as criticism but simple things I have noticed through the reading of posts bot old and recent.

I will make a counter proposition that can be taken with as much or as little notice as people want. I am actually basing the idea that "LoR is a MOC based game". I read it in the LoR 2.0 thread.

1) Give each faction a bit of redefining and uniqueness. I can map out more detail (I have it on a doc however I don't want to overwhelm people).

2) Implement a currency system (the Roawian), redefine personal points and factional points. By redefining personal points and factional points I mean actually making them mean something more than just a number. (Again I have ideas on a doc)

3) Implement an economy system with the possibility of bringing Arylego's colonization Idea back to the mainland.

4) Redefine borders to allow for NPC. This would involve allowing the current factions to choose what lands (fiefs) they want to give up lands to allow for this. Also griding out the current maps to help with these changes. Getting an exact position of the Great Western Isles would needed.

5) Tie in the Guild system to also give power to factions i.e if a player complete the explorer guild, the player's faction get a reward as well.

6) Tie Rival system into factional power i.e a player beats another player in a build-off, player gets points and the faction also gets points.

7) Redefine LC's and GC's. LC's should focus less on competitive and instead collaborative builds should be the focus. GC can be competitive, however the change is by letting one faction "host" the challenge. Also encourage collaboration between faction members.

8) Lighten the load off the KC by redefining the role as more of a moderator there to settle disputes. Possibly redefining FOs and FLs as co-leaders and adding in a support or two (or three?).

9) At some point there may need to be a redefining of magic. I know it is not a huge concept shared by many players, but it is a neat idea that if created properly can be pretty fun to use in stories.

So here are my eight nine points. I know that people want a warfare system and there can be a place for that if there is a large consensus. However like I said earlier, I have seen that people want a LoR 2.5 not a completely new game. And lastly this is ideas that I am throwing out. I am not looking to step on anyone's toes nor am I trying usurp leadership.

Post by Cuahchic on Jan 9, 2018 10:23:20 GMT -8

I've left the poll open for about another week, so we will see if there are any more votes. At present the consensus is to keep the existing LoR factions and lore so if that remains the case hopefully some of the leadership team can give us some input on what happens next.